4.8 Article

Human cardiosphere-seeded gelatin and collagen scaffolds as cardiogenic engineered bioconstructs

Journal

BIOMATERIALS
Volume 32, Issue 35, Pages 9271-9281

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.08.049

Keywords

Cardiac tissue engineering; Collagen; Gelatin; Cardiospheres

Funding

  1. Italian MIUR
  2. Pasteur Institute, Cenci-Bolognetti Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cardiac tissue engineering (CTE) aims at regenerating damaged myocardium by combining cells to a biocompatible and/or bioactive matrix. Collagen and gelatin are among the most suitable materials used today for CTE approaches. In this study we compared the structural and biological features of collagen (C-RGD) or gelatin (G-FOAM)-based bioconstructs, seeded with human adult cardiac progenitor cells in the form of cardiospheres (CSps). The different morphology between C-RGD (fibrous ball-of-thread-like) and G-FOAM (trabecular sponge-like) was evidenced by SEM analysis and X-ray microtomography, and was reflected by their different mechanical characteristics. Seeded cells were viable and proliferating after 1 week in culture, and a reduced expression of cell-stress markers versus standard CSp culture was detected by realtime PCR. Cell engraftment inside the scaffolds was assessed by SEM microscopy and histology, evidencing more relevant cell migration and production of extracellular matrix in C-RGD versus G-FOAM. Immunofluorescence and realtime PCR analysis showed down-regulation of vascular and sternness markers, while early-to-late cardiac markers were consistently and significantly upregulated in G-FOAM and C-RGD compared to standard CSps culture, suggesting selective commitment towards cardiomyocytes. Overall our results suggest that CSp-bioconstructs have suitable mechanical properties and improved survival and cardiogenic properties, representing promising tools for CTE. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available